I always thought that due to and because of are interchangable. Today I found that there is a lot of differences in their usage. I will be quite thankful if anyone could elucidate it for me.
"Due to" = "because of" (из-за)
They both have the same meaning, but I would say "because of" is used more generally, whereas "due to" is often used in news or reports.
(Example: "The road to Tbilisi is closed, due to heavy snow")
But, "because of heavy snow" is also perfectly acceptable.
Keti, are the differences between 'due to' and 'because of' any clearer in your mind now than when you first asked the question ?
What have you done to deserve to be drowned in obfuscation ?
Well said, Adrian.
nice question, share the answer when ever u find it
Keti, you will have to elaborate on what you said exactly that was corrected by someone. While both <em>due to</em> and <em>because of</em> both convey 'cause' as an absolute, they both have other uses. They also generally are not interchangeable within the same sentence <em>structure</em>, like you might see in some examples of their usage.
So yes, they are interchangeable when speaking of absolute 'cause' provided the sentence is structured correctly. They are not interchangeable if they are used in any other way.
